Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Condottiere]

Roman practice appears to be Russian, quantity beats quality, until they gain operational experience.

It's an interesting question if Carthage lost the naval war due to strategic incompetence, rather than lack of tactical expertise.

 

[tytalan]

The Diolkos of Corinth: the ancient Panama Canal without the water

Sorry I got side tracked by the other argument. It’s a good find and definitely a suitable argument for TL 1 rail roads

 

[tytalan]

Lawl citation required.

The Romans depended heavily on their highly developed navy for both invasions and the broader logistics of running an empire centred on a sea they called _Mare Nostrum_!

Yes, they had to learn quickly during the Punic Wars but learn they did to defeat the premier naval power in the western world. After victories against states and pirates they ran out of local naval challengers (comes with the whole dominate the entire coastline) but still won dominance in the channel and the North Sea as well as other areas.

There was a point in time while shipping troops across the English Channel that the Romans were losing 1 to 2 ships out of every 3. It wasn’t until they started using local ships and sailors that those numbers decreased. The Romans were bad even for Mediterranean sailors and ships wright and Mediterranean ships had a short life span in the Atlantic.

As for the Punic Wars it can be reasonably argued that the Romans won primarily based on their far superior Army and not their navy. I like to also point out that these wars were fought in the Mediterranean Sea which is very mild, and the ships were galleys which while many did have sails their primary power was oarsmen. In fact most of the battles in the Mediterranean fought with galleys were effectively land battles fought on ships. There’s a reason why most of the Roman expansion was land locked and supported by its great road system


The Roman navy was mostly crewed and built by the Greeks and Egyptian both of which were much better seamen.

Roman navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tytalan]

It’s actually not surprising that the Romans disdained naval power considering it was founded by Greek refugees possibly from Athens. The Roman Road system was its strength and most likely the birth place of the legions. There are indications that the Roman legions had their birth in the road construction crews. Getting tiered of being raided the man in charge of a work crew had his men make shields and spears to keep handy, when they were next raided the men quickly grab their shields and spears to defend themselves but being used to working as a team they fought that way also. Though it’s hard to prove one way or another since this would have been back during the monarchy and there few records from that time period. Many historians believe this was the birth of the modern army though so argue that the hoplites a lot depends on the definition of a modern army you use. The key point seems to be the fact that the hoplites were citizen soldiers while the legionaries were professional soldiers.

 

[Endie]

There was a point in time while shipping troops across the English Channel that the Romans were losing 1 to 2 ships out of every 3. It wasn’t until they started using local ships and sailors that those numbers decreased. The Romans were bad even for Mediterranean sailors and ships wright and Mediterranean ships had a short life span in the Atlantic.

As for the Punic Wars it can be reasonably argued that the Romans won primarily based on their far superior Army and not their navy. I like to also point out that these wars were fought in the Mediterranean Sea which is very mild, and the ships were galleys which while many did have sails their primary power was oarsmen. In fact most of the battles in the Mediterranean fought with galleys were effectively land battles fought on ships. There’s a reason why most of the Roman expansion was land locked and supported by its great road system


The Roman navy was mostly crewed and built by the Greeks and Egyptian both of which were much better seamen.

Roman navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's a desperately misleading way to say "the night after Caesar's landing in 55BC there was a violent storm".

Caesar was better prepared in 54BC when a similar storm blew up and he lost far fewer ships. Cassius Dio and Suetonius then tell us that the Claudian invasion in 43BC was hit by a serious storm in the Channel, was split up, but we don't hear about serious losses of ships and the troops managed to link back up.

Yes, storms in the Channel are infamously violent and sudden, and were sometimes hard for even experienced and well-prepared 1st Century BC and AD ships to weather. But the Spanish had the same problem in the English Channel a millemium and a half later, and the D-Day invasion logistics were hammered to the extent that the Americans' Mulberry harbour was all but destroyed. Storms happen at sea. The US Navy in 1944, in December 1944, lost 790 men to a single storm (and then went on to lose six ships in June '45 to another one) and yet was the most powerful and capable fleet the world had yet seen.

Storms happen, and using their effects (without mentioning the cause!) to claim an Ancient navy wasn't highly competent is not supportable.

Edit: also you show a striking lack of knowledge of sea conditions if you think that the Mediterranean is "very mild". Hurricane force winds are not uncommon, and you get Levanter or Gregale storms around Malta and Crete. Vicious storms hit the Med from October through to March each year, when cold continental air from Europe meets warm, moist air over the sea.

The Roman navy was mostly crewed and built by the Greeks and Egyptian both of which were much better seamen.

Imperial navy uses Imperial crew. Next, will you tell us the Roman army was weak because they used Dacians and Germans, Gauls and Pannonians?

 

[Condottiere]

The Romans did like outsourcing the stuff they weren't good at.

And professionalization was attributed to Marius, chances are that he just incorporated existing unofficial practices, after it was clear that constant wars had hollowed out the rural middle class and the base recruiting pool.

Once you control all the littoral territories, you pretty much eliminate any major naval bases anyone can establish.

Besides piracy.

 

[Arkathan]

You do realize this says nothing about how good of sailors the Roman’s were.

You do realize that you asked for the reference to the overland ship thing, yes? And that it is in Greece, not Rome?

 

[phavoc]

From what I recall of this, Roman naval forces sucked, getting their asses kicked by Carthage early on, but after learning their lessons they were able to give it back to Carthage. They seemed to have risen and fallen, depending on the time period. I think that most sailors thought of themselves as soldiers rather than sailors. After beating Carthage it eventually knocked out the Egyptian (the only other sea power left was Rhodes, which was a Roman ally).

Naval technology wasn't very sophisticated at the time - evidenced by how fast Rome rebuilt it's navy after losing it to Carthage. And lets not forget so much of naval combat was to try and ram and/or board your enemies vessels. And in this case the superior quality of their legionnaires came through time and again. Such a simple idea to put a nail at the end of a boarding plank!

 

[tytalan]

Edit: also you show a striking lack of knowledge of sea conditions if you think that the Mediterranean is "very mild". Hurricane force winds are not uncommon, and you get Levanter or Gregale storms around Malta and Crete. Vicious storms hit the Med from October through to March each year, when cold continental air from Europe meets warm, moist air over the sea.

I would say you’re the one lacking in knowledge of the sea conditions in the Mediterranean when compared to the Atlantic. While cyclones occasionally accrue in the Mediterranean they are fairly uncommon and almost always only accrue durning the late fall. It is the mild weather conditions that lead to the designs of your typical ancient Mediterranean ship, no keel low draft while this is a death sentence in the Atlantic. “
Ships in Ancient Greece – Ancient Greece: Φώς & Λέξη
Ancient Mediterranean and Atlantic ships differed significantly due to their environment, with Atlantic ships needing to be larger and sturdier to handle rougher open seas, while Mediterranean vessels were built for calmer, coastal, and riverine sailing. Mediterranean construction favored the "shell-first" method for hull integrity, often using lighter woods, and incorporated rowing for maneuverability, while Atlantic ships evolved to a more advanced "skeleton-first" technique and thicker hulls of durable wood like oak to withstand storms”. The Romans navy was primarily crew and built by the Greeks and the Egyptian it was very common for the Romans to do this in their military. You keep talking about the Roman navy like Rome built and crewed the ships which historically they didn’t. As for the Punic wars only the first one had significant naval presence the latter ones were primarily land battles.

As for crossing the channel the boats that did that were built in Northern Europe by Northern European and even then they were a poor design for Atlantic conditions. As for D-Day the problems the allies had was because the landing crafts had to be built very shallow which is unfortunately made them very bad at dealing with Atlantic weather. That combined with all the fortifications the Germans had set up created a situation that was very unfavorable for the landing forces.

 

[tytalan]

Naval technology wasn't very sophisticated at the time - evidenced by how fast Rome rebuilt it's navy after losing it to Carthage. And lets not forget so much of naval combat was to try and ram and/or board your enemies vessels. And in this case the superior quality of their legionnaires came through time and again. Such a simple idea to put a nail at the end of a boarding plank!

Which is the primary reason Rome won the first Punic war. Between all the ship yards in Greek and Egyptian ports and the Legions.

 

[Endie]

I would say you’re the one lacking in knowledge of the sea conditions in the Mediterranean when compared to the Atlantic. While cyclones occasionally accrue in the Mediterranean they are fairly uncommon and almost always only accrue durning the late fall. It is the mild weather conditions that lead to the designs of your typical ancient Mediterranean ship, no keel low draft while this is a death sentence in the Atlantic. “
Ships in Ancient Greece – Ancient Greece: Φώς & Λέξη
Ancient Mediterranean and Atlantic ships differed significantly due to their environment, with Atlantic ships needing to be larger and sturdier to handle rougher open seas, while Mediterranean vessels were built for calmer, coastal, and riverine sailing. Mediterranean construction favored the "shell-first" method for hull integrity, often using lighter woods, and incorporated rowing for maneuverability, while Atlantic ships evolved to a more advanced "skeleton-first" technique and thicker hulls of durable wood like oak to withstand storms”. The Romans navy was primarily crew and built by the Greeks and the Egyptian it was very common for the Romans to do this in their military. You keep talking about the Roman navy like Rome built and crewed the ships which historically they didn’t. As for the Punic wars only the first one had significant naval presence the latter ones were primarily land battles.

As for crossing the channel the boats that did that were built in Northern Europe by Northern European and even then they were a poor design for Atlantic conditions. As for D-Day the problems the allies had was because the landing crafts had to be built very shallow which is unfortunately made them very bad at dealing with Atlantic weather. That combined with all the fortifications the Germans had set up created a situation that was very unfavorable for the landing forces.

This is where I struggle not to laugh at you and dox myself when you suggest I don’t know massively more than you about shipping in general and Mediterranean shipping in particular. Let’s just say that my job leaves me extremely well-placed on the subject, and that if you have anything to do with shipping or the sea in your professional life you almost certainly use my products.

I will say, confidently, that you know nothing about what you’re talking about, here.

 

[Condottiere]

Regenerating your naval numbers doesn't appear to be too hard, considering the Athenians did it a couple of times, and the Spartans built a new navy from scratch.

Also, it appears that the Romans, apocryphically, salvaged a Carthaginian galley, discovered that they were pre assembled by numbers, and copied that.

Apparently, while they were building up their new navy, either gathered volunteers, or got slaves, and had them practice rowing on dry land.

 

[Endie]

Regenerating your naval numbers doesn't appear to be too hard, considering the Athenians did it a couple of times, and the Spartans built a new navy from scratch.

Also, it appears that the Romans, apocryphically, salvaged a Carthaginian galley, discovered that they were pre assembled by numbers, and copied that.

Apparently, while they were building up their new navy, either gathered volunteers, or got slaves, and had them practice rowing on dry land.

Yep: a typically Roman approach! Although I believe that the assembly-by-numbers element was a Roman innovation to ease construction across numerous, inexperienced yards.

 

[tytalan]

This is where I struggle not to laugh at you and dox myself when you suggest I don’t know massively more than you about shipping in general and Mediterranean shipping in particular. Let’s just say that my job leaves me extremely well-placed on the subject, and that if you have anything to do with shipping or the sea in your professional life you almost certainly use my products.

I will say, confidently, that you know nothing about what you’re talking about, here.

Wow you know a lot about modern ship yea. Too bad that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Modern ships are vastly different from ships of ancient times. I love how you completely disregard my history references and use a modern reference to support your argument it’s a great way to misdirect the argument but I’ll put the historical references here in this post too.


“Ancient Mediterranean and Atlantic ships differed significantly due to their environment, with Atlantic ships needing to be larger and sturdier to handle rougher open seas, while Mediterranean vessels were built for calmer, coastal, and riverine sailing. Mediterranean construction favored the "shell-first" method for hull integrity, often using lighter woods, and incorporated rowing for maneuverability, while Atlantic ships evolved to a more advanced "skeleton-first" technique and thicker hulls of durable wood like oak to withstand storms”. Notice the part where is says “ Atlantic ships needing to be larger and sturdier to handle rougher open seas, while Mediterranean vessels were built for calmer, coastal, and riverine sailing.” The Mediterranean is vastly calmer than the Atlantic it has to do with depths and the fact that the Mediterranean was almost completely landlocked, the modern Mediterranean is a little different but still far calmer than the Atlantic. Just because you workin shipping doesn’t mean you’ve sailed an effective small craft in either the Mediterranean or Atlantic. I’m sure you know all about modern shipping but have you ever sailed a 40 foot sailboat in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic? How about this have you ever sailed a shallow draft keel less boat in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic? If you had you might understand the difference. Unfortunately your modern shipping knowledge means nothing in this discussion because it’s irrelevant so try again to dispute historical facts.

 

[tytalan]

This is where I struggle not to laugh at you and dox myself when you suggest I don’t know massively more than you about shipping in general and Mediterranean shipping in particular. Let’s just say that my job leaves me extremely well-placed on the subject, and that if you have anything to do with shipping or the sea in your professional life you almost certainly use my products.

I will say, confidently, that you know nothing about what you’re talking about, here.

Oh by the way have you yourself ever sailed? Me I’ve sailed all over the Great Lakes in an actual sail boat. By the way the Great Lakes are also considered rougher than the Mediterranean Sea. If you actually did some research you would fine out that the Mediterranean is considerably calmer than the Atlantic with smaller waves and much more predicable weather.

Here’s a comparison of the Mediterranean to the Atlantic
Mediterranean Sea
Generally calmer: It is known for its warm, calm, and clear waters, especially during the summer months.
More protected: Being a relatively enclosed sea, it is less exposed to the large swells and strong winds common in open oceans.
Seasonal variations: It can still become rough, particularly in the fall and winter due to winds and storms, but it is generally less consistently rough than the open Atlantic.
Atlantic Ocean
Typically rougher: Open oceans like the Atlantic are less protected and are more prone to larger waves and stronger, more consistent winds, especially in higher latitudes.
Calm periods: However, the Atlantic can have very calm periods, such as the "doldrums" in the equatorial regions or during settled high-pressure systems.
Vast and varied: The Atlantic is a huge body of water, and its calmness varies greatly by location. For example, the northern Atlantic is generally rougher than the southern part

 

[Endie]

Oh by the way have you yourself ever sailed?

A - lawl yes including at competition level
B - this is (almost exactly) like you lecturing an economist on GDP calculations because you’ve spent money in the past.

 

[tytalan]

A - lawl yes including at competition level
B - this is (almost exactly) like you lecturing an economist on GDP calculations because you’ve spent money in the past.

A- well you apparently don’t consider 20+ years of sailing the Great Lakes as sailing.
B- maybe you should actually read some actual history of the Romans other than a Quick Look at the Punic war. But than this is (Almost exactly) like you lecturing a Historian because you read about a single war.
I love how you ignore the actual quotes I post and yell so loudly that you’re the expert. I suggest you do so research in both the differents between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and the Roman Empire and their use of Greek sailors. But I’m sure you know everything better than historians.

 

[Endie]

A- well you apparently don’t consider 20+ years of sailing the Great Lakes as sailing.
…

I do. But you are demonstrating perfectly that just because someone did so doesn’t mean they know jack about Mediterranean weather systems (which you spouted hilarious nonsense about) or that they are an authority on shipping in antiquity (your mangled series of Wikipedia restatements is proof of that).

Edit: Hilariously just after your denials in previous posts, I was chatting to a colleague in Montpelier and Storm Benjamin is currently hitting the western Mediterranean.

. But I’m sure you know everything better than historians.

I know more than you, but then that’s a faint claim indeed when virtually anyone on this forum could make the same boast. I'm checking in my copy of Grant's masterly "The Ancient Mediterranean" and Susan Raven's "Rome in Africa" for my replies. You're misquoting wikipedia.

Anyway, I’ve had quite enough of attempting to correct your misconceptions: I have to get back to my work, helping provide the leading analysis on world shipping from the number one company in the field I don't want to interrupt your weekly call with David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

 

[phavoc]

Yep: a typically Roman approach! Although I believe that the assembly-by-numbers element was a Roman innovation to ease construction across numerous, inexperienced yards.

After getting their butts kicked in the first war with Carthage, Rome did indeed find a damaged Carthaginian ship and rebuilt their new navy (only about 120 ships) using it as a template. Carthage was a much stronger sea power at the time than Rome was.

It was easy to build ships like this because their designs were fairly simple. Of course these ships weren't built from seasoned wood that quickly, but they didn't need to last years, so certain accommodations could be made. Ships that expect to survived longer benefit from such things.

Also, the Roman navy at the time was not staffed with slaves as rowers. For their rebuilt navy they started training their rowers on land using simulators.

If this really floats your boat (pun intended), Conway's History of the Ship series devotes book#2 to the galley and the Mediterranean ships of the time. This is a REALLY god series in my opinion, that does a fantastic job of covering so much of naval architecture and the why's and how's of things. For Traveller the book Eclipse of the Big Gun (1906-1945) works well as a bridge. Concepts like how you have to have structure under your armor if you expect to channel kinetic energy away from the impact zone without your armor plating just collapsing still makes sense in any era (I dislike too much handwavium and saying its super strong and it works magically!).

 

[Endie]

After getting their butts kicked in the first war with Carthage, Rome did indeed find a damaged Carthaginian ship and rebuilt their new navy (only about 120 ships) using it as a template. Carthage was a much stronger sea power at the time than Rome was.

It was easy to build ships like this because their designs were fairly simple. Of course these ships weren't built from seasoned wood that quickly, but they didn't need to last years, so certain accommodations could be made. Ships that expect to survived longer benefit from such things.

Also, the Roman navy at the time was not staffed with slaves as rowers. For their rebuilt navy they started training their rowers on land using simulators.

If this really floats your boat (pun intended), Conway's History of the Ship series devotes book#2 to the galley and the Mediterranean ships of the time. This is a REALLY god series in my opinion, that does a fantastic job of covering so much of naval architecture and the why's and how's of things. For Traveller the book Eclipse of the Big Gun (1906-1945) works well as a bridge. Concepts like how you have to have structure under your armor if you expect to channel kinetic energy away from the impact zone without your armor plating just collapsing still makes sense in any era (I dislike too much handwavium and saying its super strong and it works magically!).

Yes, absolutely, but the "build by numbers" element that he referenced in the post I replied to was a Roman invention for mass production in shipyards that had no experience with the techniques involved, to allow them to scale out production. That's what i was referring to. And I certainly never suggested that they were using slave rowers (at this point)!